Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> We can revert that if necessary. It will open up a hole, though. Take
>> your pick - spec compliance or validly coded data.
>>
>
> I would rather take CONVERT USING out altogether, than have an
> implementation that so clearly disregards the spec as to not even return
> a compatible datatype.
>
> Other than the fact that it's supposed to return varchar, the spec's
> description of what it converts to what seems about as clear as mud.
> I suspect however that it can't really be implemented properly without
> support for per-value (or at least per-column) encoding, which is
> something we're nowhere near having. Maybe we *should* take it out
> instead of using spec-defined syntax for a behavior that we made up
> out of whole cloth.
>
>
>
Works for me. If there's no objection I'll start on that in a few days.
cheers
andrew
